Tuning out the news

[Seramount]

Originally Posted by gasman

I miss Walter Cronkite...

yeah, there was a time when news anchors like WC and Huntley/Brinkely simply reported the news of the day in a 30-minute broadcast with little added analysis or spin.

the advent of 24/7 cable 'news' mandated constant interpretation for the masses to help fill the hours.

in this day, there is no such thing as a neutral news source. they all have bias and agendas.

[paredown]

I have no nostalgia for Cronkite or the rest of the talking heads from the past--a lot of the news coverage then was uncritical/shaped by spin/not tough enough on DC politicians.

A group of friends have taken a different course than quietism--since they have decided they do not like the actions and attitudes of some current politicians, or see issues that need addressing, they have become activists--some have run for office, most have actively worked on campaigns, most have participated in candidate forums or issues-related meetings and shared their concerns with the "electeds" about what could be done differently.

My personal gripe is not with the people that have let the news dominate their lives, but with those who stay angry and rant all the time, but don't take the step to consider what could be made better, and then participate and especially vote.

A funny thing about participating--it changes your perspective about this country. My favorite experience was a few years ago, poll watching in a local, a gloves-off, hard fought race. The poll watchers were the loveliest group of people--they ranged in age from the oldest who was 70+ to the 'youngster' who was in his 30s, and some had been poll-watching at the same poll for 30 years. It's hard to communicate why it encouraged me--but they were embracing their "duty" as citizens and participating--and something about that is critical to this (and every) democracy.

For me--no TV news (never developed the habit), sampling two major newspapers (Times and Post), a hand in on long form (New Yorker, Atlantic and others), occasional podcasts on specific topics and no phone consumption of anything. My personal favorite these days is a blog called Lawfare--a bunch of smart lawyers trying to figure out where we are...

[Davist]

Originally Posted by makoti

EVERYTHING has bias. Jeez. In relation to what else is on the chart, WP, NYT, WSJ fall in the middle. I'd say the chart is pretty accurate. Something being in the center of it doesn't mean you can read it & just accept it without applying some critical thinking skills.

I'm sure we're agreed. Understood that "everything" has a bias and your point about critical thinking!.. Showing NYT, Slate and the Economist (clear left bias) in the middle was my issue. I don't think there is a representative middle currently, or a shortcut that can be shown via infographic. Maybe the WSJ is a little closer to middle with a right bias? I tend to read business news mostly so perhaps my bias is toward WSJ as a more reliable source.

The lack of journalism basics (dual independent sources as one) have really impacted my view. Lara Logan recently has spoken out about this, as someone who has some bona fides globally and coming into the US system from outside..

[Hilltopperny]

I personally dropped it all back in 2016 and haven't looked back. I find my moods are better and my family is happier for it.

Focusing on one's own life and remaining positive by being the actual change you'd like to see in the world is much easier when not focusing on the he said/she said mess that is politically driven "news".

Getting caught up in the right/left paradigm with false narratives pushed everyday is a tough existence IMHO and too easy to get caught up in. I know how I personally feel about things and don't need a talking head to try and sway me one way or the other.

Looking at things with a positive outlook and doing the right thing are how I choose to live at this stage of my life and it seems to be working much better than finding things to be angry about or allowing constant negativity to flow through the TV/Computer/smart phone and creep into our minds.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[steveoz]

Tuned it out and really wish some of the more "passionate" ones would do the same....I remember seeing a man berating the cashier at the grocery store screaming "Benghazi!Benghazi! huh! what about that!" (funny how that just dropped off the radar), had another "acquaintance" (former friend) tell me how there was going to be civil war in 6 months if Hillary got elected (he also added the little nugget that I'd be his first target...hence "former friend") people are so mentally fu**ed by the constant negative bombardment that it's having an effect on the fabric of our society...

[daker13]

I struggle with many of the things the OP brought up. Generally, I think the less news one reads the better, but I do believe one has a certain responsibility to the world and for one's country. You can't just bury your head in the sand. I try to be very critical about what I read.

I dislike the chart for reasons different than most. For one thing, it uses the word 'liberal,' which most people on the left, or at least the younger ones, are avoiding, and is a dirty word to those of us to the left of the Democratic party. People who use this word are just relying on an outdated vocabulary. There was a funny exchange recently where the NYT referred to the magazine Current Affairs as a 'liberal' magazine, and the Current Affairs staff threatened to sue them for libel.

The chart refers to the Atlantic as 'leaning liberal'--a magazine edited by Jeffrey Goldberg and featuring David Frum! Give me a break. People refer to the NYT as biased because it's too 'liberal'... In debating whether to use military force in other countries, the Times has been in favor of every intervention in the last 40 years except for the invasion of Grenada, I believe. This is not a lefty newspaper. The op ed pages are so full of conservatives that it became a joke in the publishing industry, until they finally were bullied into hiring Michelle Alexander. (I subscribe to the NYT and the Post.) I could go on and on, but it's really inaccurate to refer to the NYT and the Post as 'liberal' newspapers. They are biased, but as to which side, it's going to depend on where you're standing. (I do agree that nearly the entire media machine favored Clinton in '16--though again, whether that was more unfair to our current president, or to Bernie Sanders, is subjective.)

All news sources are biased. But the ideological fallout of the Cold War is that many Americans are completely unequipped when it comes to thinking about leftist movements, or anything to the left of the Democratic Party. The so-called 'liberal' mainstream media is as bad at this as anyone. Leftwing political factions of one sort or another are powerful players around the world, dominate the governments of many nations and regions (and show signs of being emergent even here in the US), and yet the average American is unable to wrap his head around this beyond the routine 'capitalism is the greatest' mindset. Truly left-wing and critical sources like Counterpunch, the Gray Zone, FAIR, etc., are really valuable if you're interested in a truly 'balanced' view--also non-US sources such as RT, Al Jazeera, etc.

[makoti]

Originally Posted by Davist

I'm sure we're agreed. Understood that "everything" has a bias and your point about critical thinking!.. Showing NYT, Slate and the Economist (clear left bias) in the middle was my issue. I don't think there is a representative middle currently, or a shortcut that can be shown via infographic. Maybe the WSJ is a little closer to middle with a right bias? I tend to read business news mostly so perhaps my bias is toward WSJ as a more reliable source.

The lack of journalism basics (dual independent sources as one) have really impacted my view. Lara Logan recently has spoken out about this, as someone who has some bona fides globally and coming into the US system from outside..

I think we do agree. The NYT/WP are absolutely lean left pubs, while The Hill & WSJ are right leaners. My point was that, in the context of THIS graphic, these are your centerist news sources. Dead center? No, but much much closer than, say, Breitbart or Occupy Democrats, both in the graphic & fringe loonies.

[HenryA]

I am sure that as the Mueller report is digested there will be a portion of the population who don’t want to hear any more about it ever again. Dissappointment can be a powerful emotion. And another portion for whom the report result will never be good enough and who will continue to try to overturn the results of a fair election with their inane ramblings and caterwoling.

One thing for sure is that the media in general will continue to roll out stories to keep their ad revenue stream flowing. Another thing is for sure - we are a loud and raucous country and the internet allows anyone to yell what they want, crazy or not and to a huge audience. This has never been so. Turning away sometimes from the cacaphony is understandable.

[72gmc]

You were doing fine until your third sentence, henry. All of us need to remember to be open to other points of view, insist on multiple sources, do our own fact checking, and never let up on our scrutiny of those who wield power. Even--especially--when power is aligned with your vote.

[FlashUNC]

Originally Posted by Jef58

For the most part, it doesn't matter who is in office, things really don't change all that much on our level. As long as we are free, have a decent way of life and our civil liberties are intact, that is all we can ask for. Politicians make a living off of creating problems so we can vote for them to solve. As long as they don't solve them, they convince us to keep voting for them.... Thankfully we live in a country where we can voice our disagreements openly without retribution.

This is just patently untrue and such a corrosive idea.

Three examples from the last 20 years:

-- If Al Gore is President, do we invade Iraq?

-- If John McCain is President, do we get the ACA?

-- If Hillary Clinton is President, do we have the immigration policies in place that we do today?

I disagree with nearly everything Steve Bannon has to say, but he's right about one thing, elections have consequences. The vote matters. Whatever your personal politics are, to argue there's no difference ignores even a basic reading of recent history, and belies a position of privilege where one doesn't care about what may happen to other portions of our society as a whole.

[XXtwindad]

I love reading the newspaper (SF Chronicle, NYT, WSJ) with my morning cup of coffee. It's one of the few rituals I have that's sacrosanct. I certainly have a bias (I come from a journalism background) but I still think the traditional "gatekeepers" have an important role to play in the Marketplace of Ideas.

I'm keeping my eyes on House Bill 2054, which would exempt newspapers from anti-trust laws in order to compete with Facebook and Google for advertising.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sfc...s-13745431.php

A world in which the primary news source is Facebook leads to deranged conspiracy freaks raiding pizza parlors.

[XXtwindad]

Originally Posted by paredown

I have no nostalgia for Cronkite or the rest of the talking heads from the past--a lot of the news coverage then was uncritical/shaped by spin/not tough enough on DC politicians.

A group of friends have taken a different course than quietism--since they have decided they do not like the actions and attitudes of some current politicians, or see issues that need addressing, they have become activists--some have run for office, most have actively worked on campaigns, most have participated in candidate forums or issues-related meetings and shared their concerns with the "electeds" about what could be done differently.

My personal gripe is not with the people that have let the news dominate their lives, but with those who stay angry and rant all the time, but don't take the step to consider what could be made better, and then participate and especially vote.

A funny thing about participating--it changes your perspective about this country. My favorite experience was a few years ago, poll watching in a local, a gloves-off, hard fought race. The poll watchers were the loveliest group of people--they ranged in age from the oldest who was 70+ to the 'youngster' who was in his 30s, and some had been poll-watching at the same poll for 30 years. It's hard to communicate why it encouraged me--but they were embracing their "duty" as citizens and participating--and something about that is critical to this (and every) democracy.

For me--no TV news (never developed the habit), sampling two major newspapers (Times and Post), a hand in on long form (New Yorker, Atlantic and others), occasional podcasts on specific topics and no phone consumption of anything. My personal favorite these days is a blog called Lawfare--a bunch of smart lawyers trying to figure out where we are...

Just checked out "Lawfare." Good stuff. Thx for the recommendation.

[redir]

I remember as a kid my dad would come home, watch the news, then do something else. That's the way it was. There was no constant barrage of news 24/7. It's Orwell's nightmare come true only it's not governments out for control but corporations out for profit. You give them their attention and they feed you what you are looking for.

So I don't blame anyone for pushing it aside. Just don't give up on staying at least a bit informed becasue if we all did that then 'they' win because that's exactly what they want. They want to push forward an agenda without anyone paying attention.

I used to come home from work and while I was usually in my workshop building things I'd listen to NPR news. THey would play the news then put on typically a Jazz show or one that I miss was a swing show. Now they have abandoned all that. It's all news or opinionated news shows and it's really annoying. They have jumped on the band wagon too.

[bambam]

Tune out a lot of so called news seems like ages ago.

When partial quotes on what people say are analyzed by 4 people for their opinions, that seems pointless.

Lets react to actions that follow claims, not words someone assumes what some other person meant.

Also, When the so call sports channels put on highlights 12 hours a day and fill up multiple channels for weeks with mock pro drafts and fantasy picks. Whats the point.
Why do I want to hear who Joe Blow thinks is going to pick in a draft? Just wait for the actual draft.

Just like MTV, remember that, "Music television", Use to be 24 hours of videos now 24 hours of junk.

I'm glad and happier now.
If its really important we will talk about it 3 days after whatever happens.
If it is rushed to get something out and wrong we won't even hear the retraction that would happen at 2:30 in the morning.

I'm to the point I don't believe most stories before 48 hours are elapsed since the reported incident.

That's what rocks about doing a 600k. No time for news.

[merlinmurph]

When I was younger, and even well into middle age, I was horribly uninformed. I could have been the posterchild of the Uninformed American. Seriiusly. The good part about that is that I didn't care about what was going on, never got upset, never yelled at the TV, never had a violent argument with a friend over politics. I was way more interested in powder days and big wind for windsurfing.

I decided to change that a number of years ago, and I have to say that I get pissed a lot more. The modern non-stop news cycle coupled with the current political climate definitely contribute to that, but being better informed is the main reason. Right now, I'd rather be informed than be clueless. Maybe there will be a time I check out, but one of the things that riles me up the most these days is uninformed people who disregard facts.

There's something to say for being in the middle of nowhere with no internet, TV, etc. It's harder to find, though.